Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Some of the presidential candidates 'get it' in this war against Islamic terrorism. I want to know each candidates beliefs, because I will not vote for anyone who does not fully understand who our enemy is. Nor will I vote for anyone who is not strong on sealing our borders against illegal aliens and potential terrorists entering the country.

Mitt Romney delivered a major address on the subject of terrorism to the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference. Pipeline News says "Romney's presentation demonstrated an acute grasp of the threat that Islamism presents to the West and how that challenge has fundamentally changed our security paradigm."

Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists.

What we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire world. It was not really about borders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel's right to exist - within any borders." [snip]

"I think it is critical that we understand that as far as our enemies are concerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel is simply a weigh station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire world. Jihadism - violent, radical fundamentalism - has emerged as this century's nightmare It follows the same dark path as last century's nightmares: fascism and Soviet-styled communism. " [snip]

"In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed. In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life. "

Concluding his remarks Romney characterized the Ahmadinejad regime as singularly dangerous and also chided Democrat opposition to the newly announced policy of hot pursuit of Iranian meddlers in Iraq, calling it "folly."

Of the Iranian nuclear threat he said, "I believe that Iran's leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany."

In this address Mr. Romney has taken not-a-small step towards elevating himself intellectually above his rivals. His remarks reveal him to be thoroughly conversant with the threat that radical Islam represents and willing to speak plainly and forcefully about it.

As such he is not only the first of the 2008 presidential hopefuls to broach what is arguably the most serious challenge of our time he is the only presidential candidate from either party so far who seems to fully understand the implications inherent in a failure to defeat it. (source)

Rudy Giuliani has an exploratory committee together, but hasn't yet announced he will be running. I think he would probably be very good on terrorism, but I want to hear him talk about it. Unfortunately, Giuliani's beliefs on several other important topics differ from mine, so I would have a hard time voting for him. At this point I'm willing to listen to all the candidates. Well, maybe not Chuck Hagel. The Bear says:

Pardon my bit of crassness but before I could vote for Chuck Hagel I would have to be dragged away by the guys in white coats, handcuffed and put into a padded cell. Senator Chuck Hagel has replaced former Senator Lincoln Chaffee in my book as the number one RINO in the Republican Party and we don’t need any more stink’in RINOs.

Oh boy, this town get's it. Herouxville, Quebec wants people to assimilate into their community. I love it!!! Hat Tip Angel:

A sign at the entrance of this rural Quebec town says: Herouxville welcomes you. Unless, that is, you plan on stoning a woman to death, sending your kids to school with a kirpan or covering your face other than on Halloween.

The town council of Herouxville, a sleepy town dominated by a towering Roman Catholic church, has adopted a declaration of "norms" that it says would-be immigrants should be aware of before they settle in this town.

Among them, it is forbidden to stone women or burn them with acid.

Children cannot carry weapons to school. That includes ceremonial religious daggers like kirpans even though the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikhs can carry kirpans in schools.

However, children can swim in a pool with other children - boys and girls alike because they can't be segregated.

And for the record, female police officers in Herouxville, 165 kilometres northwest of Montreal, can arrest male suspects. Also part of the declaration is to allow women to drive, dance and make decisions on their own.

"We're telling people who we are," said Andre Drouin, one of six town councillors and the driving force behind the declaration passed earlier this month. [snip]

According to the five-page declaration, in Herouxville children sing Christmas songs at Christmas and adults can drink alcohol.

Immigrants want to be part of Canada, Drouin said, and to do that they need to know what is acceptable and what isn't.

Call me crazy, but I come from the school of common sense ethics and logic that says . . . You don’t say “We love and support our troops” while at the same time yanking the rug out from beneath their feet.

But then, what does common sense, ethics, or logic have to do with most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans in Congress today?

All the Democrats, with the exception ofSen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., are almost unanimous in their opposition to Bush’s war plans.

Congress is currently considering several cut and run solutions to prevent Bush’s 21,500 troop increase: a nonbinding anti-war resolution, proposals to cut off funds for the Iraq war, and/or a cap on the number of troops in Iraq.

Democratic presidential hopeful (let’s hope not), Sen. Barack Obama, has introduced a bill to bring combat forces out of Iraq by the spring of 2008. The bill would also cap troop levels in Iraq at around 130-thousand (the level before Bush announced he'd send additional U-S forces to the region.)

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, has sponsored a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.Will the GOP continue to splinter in the U.S. Congress?

Will the GOP continue to splinter in the U.S. Congress?

Many Republicans fear that consequences of the Iraq war will hurt their election prospects for years to come.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ex-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a challenge to Bush, "I would respectfully suggest to the President that he is not the sole `decider, . . . The decider is a shared and joint responsibility'"

Former White House lawyer, Brad Berenson, who served as White House associate counsel for most of Bush's first term, stated "I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war."

Specter and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the White House's views on Congress' war powers.

James Pinkerton, a former aide to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush said: "In times of war, the instinct is to trust dad more than mom, and the Republicans have benefited from that, . . .But if dad keeps wrecking the car, then there may be reason to change.''

Will the military splinter over Iraq?

Navy Adm. William Fallon, Bush's nominee to head the U.S. Central Command, said at his Senate confirmation hearing that “time for finding solutions in Iraq is running out.” As head of U.S. Central Command, Fallon would have overall responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the lefty AP, Fallon said, "What we have been doing has not been working," he said. "We have got to be doing, it seems to me, something different." He did not say what might change under his command.

"I believe the situation in Iraq can be turned around, but time is short," Fallon told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Reuters reported that Fallon also said, "The likelihood that Iraq is suddenly going to turn into something that looks close to what we enjoy here in this country is going to be a long time coming."

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

A commenter asked a question earlier and I believe the only way to answer what the ideology of the Left is, cannot come from those of us on the right, so we must go to the source....the problem there is getting a member of the Left to self analyze themselves objectively.

Impossible? Not really. The members of todays left cannot be trusted to analyze themselves objectively, BUT a member a yesteryears left has. I briefly quoted some excerpts from this earlier in another piece found here, but his words and assessments are worthy of a post of their own.

When I see protesters in the flush of youthful idealism holding signs that proclaim “No Vietnams in Central America,” a feeling of ineffable sadness overtakes me. For 20 years ago I was one of them. In 1962, as a graduate student at Berkeley, I wrote the first book of New Left protest, Student, and helped to organize the first “anti-war” demonstration opposing what we denounced as U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

In the mid-Sixties, I went to England and helped to organize the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, which supported what we called the Vietnamese struggle for independence from the United States, as well as the International War Crimes Tribunal, which brought American war atrocities under intense and damning scrutiny but ignored atrocities committed by the Communist forces in Vietnam. While in England, I also wrote The Free World Colossus, a New Left history of the Cold War, which was used as a radical text in colleges and in the growing movement against the Vietnam War. At the end of the Sixties, I returned to America as an editor of Ramparts, the most widely read New Left magazine. Our most famous cover appeared during Richard Nixon’s campaign in 1972 for a second term. It featured a photograph of the My Lai massacre with a sign superimposed and planted among the corpses saying, “Re-Elect the President.”

Let me make this perfectly clear: Those of us who inspired and then led the anti-war movement did not want merely to stop the killing as so many veterans of those domestic battles now claim. We wanted the Communists to win. It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the Communists would win. “Bring the troops home” was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result.

This is where I stopped earlier, but the rest explains quite a bit about why he did what he did and what he finally realized about himself and others in the anti-war party.

There was a political force in American life that did want a peace that would not also mean a Communist victory — a peace that would deny Hanoi its conquest and preserve the integrity of South Vietnam. That force was led by our archenemy President Richard Nixon, whose campaign slogans were “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam and “Law and Order” at home. Just as we did not want honor that meant preserving the government of South Vietnam, so we did not respect law and order, because respecting the democratic process would have meant that the majority in America, who supported President Nixon and South Vietnam, would have prevailed.

Like today’s young radicals, we Sixties activists had a double standard when it came to making moral and political judgments. We judged other countries and political movements—specifically socialist countries and revolutionary movements—by the futures we imagined they could have if only the United States and its allies would get out of their way. We judged America, however, by its actual performance, which we held up to a standard of high and even impossible ideals. We were, in the then-fashionable term, “alienated” from what was near to us, unable to judge it with any objectivity.

Some of this alienation—a perennial and essential ingredient of all political leftism—could be attributed to youth itself, the feeling that we could understand the world better and accomplish more than our elders could. There was another dimension to our disaffection, however, an ideology that committed us to “truths” behind the common sense surface of things.

I myself was a Marxist and a socialist. I believed in the “dialectic” of history and, therefore, even though I knew that the societies calling themselves Marxist were ruled by ruthless dictatorships, I believed that they would soon evolve into socialist democracies. I attributed their negative features to underdevelopment and to the capitalist pasts from which they had emerged. I believed that Marxist economic planning was the most rational solution to their underdevelopment and would soon bring them unparalleled prosperity—an idea refuted as dramatically by the experience of the last 70 years as the ancillary notion that private property is the source of all tyranny and that socialist states would soon become free.

On the other hand, the same Marxist analysis told me that America, however amenable to reform in the past, was set on a course that would make it increasingly rigid, repressive, and ultimately fascist. The United States was the leviathan of a global imperialist system under attack at home and abroad. Its ruling class could not afford to retreat from this challenge; it could only grow more reactionary and repressive. This expectation, wrong in every respect, was not an idiosyncratic theory of mine but was the lynchpin of the New Left’s political view of the world generally and of its strategy of opposition to America’s war in Vietnam in particular.

The New Left believed that, in Vietnam, America’s corporate liberal empire had reached a point of no return. As a result, electoral politics and any effort to reform it were futile and counterproductive. The only way to alter America’s imperial course was to take to the streets—first to organize resistance to the war and then to “liberate” ourselves from the corporate capitalist system. That was why we were in the streets. That was why we did not take a hard stand against the bomb throwers in our midst.

What happened to change my views and cause me to have second thoughts? As our opposition to the war grew more violent and our prophecies of impending fascism more intense, I had taken note of how we were actually being treated by the system we condemned. By the decade's end we had (deliberately) crossed the line of legitimate dissent and abused every First Amendment privilege and right granted us as Americans. While American boys were dying overseas, we spat on the flag, broke the law, denigrated and disrupted the institutions of government and education, gave comfort and aid (even revealing classified secrets) to the enemy. Some of us provided a protective propaganda shield for Hanoi's Communist regime while it tortured American fliers; others engaged in violent sabotage against the war effort. All the time I thought to myself: If we did this in any other country, the very least of our punishments would be long prison terms and the pariah status of traitors. In any of the socialist countries we supported—from Cuba to North Vietnam—we would spend most of our lives in jail and, more probably, be shot.

And what actually happened to us in repressive capitalist America? Here and there our wrists were slapped (some of us went to trial, some spent months in jail) but basically the country tolerated us. And listened to us. We began as a peripheral minority, but as the war dragged on without an end in sight, people joined us: first in thousands and then in tens of thousands, swelling our ranks until finally we reached what can only be called the conscience of the nation. America itself became troubled about its presence in Vietnam, about the justice and morality of the war it had gone there to fight. And because the nation became so troubled, it lost its will to continue the war and withdrew.

Thus was refuted all the preconceptions we had had about the rigidity of American politics, about the controlled capitalist media (which, in fact, provided the data that fueled our attacks on the war), and about the ruling-class lock on American foreign policy. That policy had shown itself in its most critical dimension responsive to the will of ordinary people and to their sense of justice and morality. As a historian, I believe I am correct in my judgment that America’s withdrawal from the battlefront in Vietnam because of domestic opposition is unique in human history: There is no other case on record of a major power retreating from a war in response to the moral opposition of its own citizenry.

If America’s response to this test of fire gave me an entirely new understanding of American institutions and of the culture of democracy that informs and supports them, the aftermath of the U.S. retreat gave me a new appreciation of the Communist opponent. America not only withdrew its forces from Vietnam, as we on the left said it could never do, but from Laos and Cambodia and, ultimately, from its role as guardian of the international status quo.

Far from increasing the freedom and wellbeing of Third World nations, as we in the left had predicted, however, America’s withdrawal resulted in an international power vacuum that was quickly filled by the armies of Russia, Cuba, and the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge.All this bloodshed and misery was the direct result of America’s post-Vietnam withdrawal, of the end of Pax Americana, which we had ardently desired and helped to bring about.

In Vietnam itself, the war’s aftermath showed beyond any doubt the struggle there was not ultimately to achieve or prevent self-determination but—as various presidents said and we denied—a Communist conquest of the South. Today, the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, whose cause we supported, no longer exists. Its leaders are dead, in detention camps, under house arrest, in exile, powerless. America left Vietnam 10 years ago; but today Hanoi’s army is the fourth largest in the world, and Vietnam has emerged as a Soviet satellite and imperialist aggressor in its own right, subverting the independence of Laos, invading and colonizing Cambodia.

These events confronted me with a supreme irony: The nation I had believed to be governed by corporate interests, a fountainhead of world reaction, was halted in mid-course by its conscience-stricken and morally aroused populace; the forces I had identified with progress, once freed from the grip of U.S. “imperialism,” revealed them-selves to be oppressive, predatory and unspeakably ruthless. I was left with this question: What true friend of the South Vietnamese, or the Cambodians, or the Ethiopians, or the people of Afghanistan, would not wish that Pax Americana were still in force?

There was yet another Vietnam lesson for me when I pondered the question put by Jeanne Kirkpatrick to the still-active veterans of the New Left: “How can it be that persons so deeply committed to the liberation of South Vietnam and Cambodia from Generals Thieu and Lon Nol were so little affected by the enslavement that followed their liberation? Why was there so little anguish among the American accomplices who helped Pol Pot to power?” Indeed, why have such supposedly passionate advocates of Third World liberation not raised their voices in protest over the rape of Afghanistan or the Cuban-abetted catastrophe to Ethiopia?

Not only has the left failed to make a cause of these Marxist atrocities, it has failed to consider the implications of what we now know about Hanoi’s role in South Vietnam’s“civil war.” For North Vietnam’s victors have boldly acknowledged that they had intruded even more regular troops into the South than was claimed by the Presidential White Paper used to justify America’s original commitment of military forces—a White Paper that we leftists scorned at the time as a fiction based on anti-Communist paranoia and deception. But today’s left is too busy denigrating Ronald Reagan’s White Papers on Soviet and Cuban intervention in Central America to consider the implications of this past history to the present.

My experience has convinced me that historical ignorance and moral blindness are endemic to the American left, necessary conditions of its existence. It does not value the bounty it actually has in this country. In the effort to achieve a historically bankrupt fantasy—call it socialism, call it “liberation”—it undermines the very privileges and rights it is the first to claim.

The lesson I learned from Vietnam was not a lesson in theory but a lesson in practice. Observing this nation go through its worst historical hour from a vantage on the other side of the barricade, I came to understand that democratic values are easily lost and, from the evidence of the past, only rarely achieved, that America is a precious gift, a unique presence in the world of nations. Because it is the strongest of the handful of democratic societies that mankind has managed to create, it is also a fortress that stands between the free nations of the world and the dark, totalitarian forces that threaten to engulf them.

My values have not changed, but my sense of what supports and makes them possible has. I no longer can join “anti-war” movements that seek to disarm the Western democracies in the face of the danger that confronts them. I support the current efforts of America’s leadership to rebuild our dangerously weakened military defenses, and I endorse the conservative argument that America needs to be vigilant, strong, and clear of purpose in its life-and-death struggle with its global totalitarian adversaries. As an ex-radical, I would only add that in this struggle Americans need to respect and encourage their own generosity—their tolerance for internal dissent and their willingness to come to the aid of people who are fighting for their freedom.

A window into the soul or lack thereof, of the Left. It isn't pretty, but knowing that they are AWARE of the damage they seek and simply do not CARE......says it all.

Makes me wonder how the author would feel now, 20+ yrs later as America's Left repeats his mistakes damn near to a tee.

(NOTE: Tomorrow I will not be posting and Faultline USA and Debbie from Right Truth will be holding down the fort for me. Please remember the rules to the comments... Debate the issues but NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, they will be deleted).

First it seems Durbin the Dick, gets his "intel" from the media.... obviously the MSM.

Senator Durbin countered by citing news articles that said some of the new troops being sent to Iraq are going without adequate training or equipment. “Now who is standing behind the troops?” he asked.

Wapo is now the source that "The Dick", Durbin is using as his expert opinion.

Yes, the media and their words, for the Democrats, is now much more expert in their opinions that General David Petraeus, James Baker and the host of experts they have testifying including the marine General, Pace.

WASHINGTON – President Bush's plan to send additional forces to Iraq and to increase the military end strength sends an important message to the troops, the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

U.S. military commanders on the ground asked for and support the plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told committee members.

"(Our commanders) have asked for additional forces and are happy to have additional forces in the pipeline," he said. These additional troops will give them the flexibility they need to "to reinforce success" already made or respond to unexpected increases in enemy action, he said. If conditions on the ground demonstrate the troop surge isn't needed, the pipeline "can be turned off," Pace said.

Speaking of the expert testimony brings up my next point in the article.

Congress bears responsibility for the deaths that follow their interference and defunding of a war.... including raising the question of forcing withdrawal.

Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia suggested that Congress had made itself responsible for the deaths of the 1.7 million Cambodians estimated to have been slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, by denying funds for President Nixon to wage war inside Cambodia. Similarly, he said Congress bore responsibility for the deaths of 241 marines killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in 1983 because it raised the question of forcing a withdrawal there.

History and historians have a major advantage over us that are in the here-and-now. They can look back and take the consequences of the actions we make NOW into their accounts, as they have done with Vietnam and Lebanon.

How many deaths will the historians lay blame at the feet of this new congress should they continue on the course of defeat for their political games?

That, of course, cannot be answered now.... but for historians the answer will be easy because they DO have the advantage of being able to see the consequences before writing about it in our history books.

In the meantime, with all the talk and hype, we still haven't seen any alternate plan that will lead to SUCCESS.... that seems to be a word that is NOT in the anti-war, anti-military idiots vocabulary.

WASHINGTON — James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to "give it a chance."

"The president's plan ought to be given a chance," Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Just give it a chance."

Baker, a former secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, said it was wrong for the Senate to confirm Army Gen. David Petreaus to lead the new Iraq mission at the same time it was moving to pass non-binding resolutions opposing the deployment of at least 21,500 U.S. forces to improve security in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. Some of those forces have already been deployed.

Baker also deflected criticism from Democratic senators that the president's new Iraq strategy lacked sufficient emphasis on diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. Baker said the new plan envisions new diplomatic initiatives, though it does not include one of the ISG's chief recommendations: direct talks with Iran and Syria.

Baker's endorsement could well alter the political dynamic dealing with Senate debate on the president's new Iraq plan. Many critics have cited the ISG, which in November published 79 recommendations for getting the United States of Iraq successfully, as the basis for opposing the troop surge. References to the ISG's military and diplomatic recommendations are cited in both leading resolutions opposing the new Iraq plan.

With Baker's endorsement, opponents of non-binding resolutions may have new ammunition to argue against the Senate sending any signal of opposition to the new plan.

The ISG's other co-chairman, former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, did not endorse the troop surge directly, but said the group did conditionally recommend a short-term troop surge and said the president's new plan and the overall recommendations depend on improvements pursued by the Iraqi government.

"If we can put this together there is a chance we can reasonably succeed. But we realize that is a very, very daunting challenge," Hamilton said. "There isn't any doubt that in the president's proposals and in ours that we are depending on, very heavily, an improvement in the performance of the Iraqi government. Will it happen? I don't know. It does make you uneasy, when you have to put your dependence on this government. What other alternative do you have? You can't go out on the street of Baghdad and pick 10 people and put your confidence in them."

I do not hold much hope that anything Hamilton OR Baker says will stop the politicians from their games, considering they are more than willing to completely ignore General David Petraeus's words when he affirmed that any resolutions would be "encouraging the enemy".

They confirmed him unanimously in one breath, then in the next breath they try to deny him the troops HE TESTIFIED HE NEEDED.

More about how the president's new plan is working already from Amy Proctor.

The Web site — www.thenrscpledge.com — boasted around 30,000 signers as of Monday, and that’s a cause of concern for Senate Republicans.

NRSC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said Monday the committee is taking Hewitt’s effort seriously, indicating the NRSC is concerned about the practical implications it might have on fundraising and grass-roots support for GOP Senate candidates.

“Of course we worry about the effect something like this has on online fundraising,” Fisher said. “As we explore different methods of fundraising, we have to be sure that we can effectively take advantage of every available avenue. And with a response like this blog has received, we take notice.”

The Pledge has passed 30,000 signers, but that is only one measure of disgust with Congressional double-mindedness on the war among victory Republicans. Beltway earmuffs appear to have cut off many Republicans from hearing what many of their constituents and supporters are saying, and if the next few weeks and months become attempts to me-to Democratic obstructionism and defeatism on the war, the base that turned out and kept many other Republicans from defeat in November will turn exclusively to the presidential campaign as the only place in which to invest their political energy in support of a candidate who understands the stakes and has a clear grasp of the war and the significance of Iraq within it.

URL's for their contact forms, their phone numbers and their fax numbers are found there.

I see many ask the question "what can we do?"

Here is your chance, email, call and fax them. Make your position known, let them understand that unlike their useless "non binding" resolutions....OUR Pledge is binding for us and they will not see one red cent by way of campaign contributions and the NRSC will not receive a dime in contributions if they do not pledge that no part of it will go to ANY politician that signs or produces ANY resolution, non binding or otherwise.

Keep up the pressure folks, do not quit. Make sure our elected leaders understand that WE WILL NOT FORGET and we will not contribute NOR vote for them if they do not stand up and denounce ALL resolutions.

Please visit here and see what our troops are saying, via video, about Iraq.

Listen to them and understand what YOU are doing to them with your words and actions.

I do not believe that everyone that is against the war is unpatritotic, but I ask you, did you come by your opinion from watching the news? Have you BEEN to Iraq? These men and women are fighting and dying for this mission...... Maybe, perhaps, you would consider LISTENING TO THEM.

This is not politics to our brave men and women in Iraq. This is about protecting and helping the Iraqi's... To our soldiers, this about THESE children. The Iraqi's is what we call them... have we forgotten that they are PEOPLE?

Cambodia Killing Fields...... will we, yet again, abandon the Iraqi's to the same fate? Have the anti-war of our country learned ANYTHING from the consequences of our abandoning innocent men,women and children to monsters, because we couldn't handle a hard fight?

History is right at our fingertips now...we can now find with a touch of a keyboard proof of the ramifications of leaving a job half done.

The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge communist regime which ruled the country, as Democratic Kampuchea, from 1975 to 1979. Estimates of the number of dead range from 1.5 to 3 million out of a population of around 7 million. The Khmer Rouge judicial process, for minor or political crimes, began with a warning from the Angkar, the government of Cambodia under the regime. More than two warnings resulted in being sent for "re-education", which meant near-certain death. People were often encouraged to confess to Angkar their "pre-revolutionary lifestyles and crimes" (which usually included some kind of free-market activity, or having had contact with some foreign source, such as a U.S. missionary, or international relief or government agency, or contact with any foreigner or with the outside world at all), being told that Angkar would forgive them and "wipe the slate clean." This meant being taken away to places such as Tuol Sleng or Choeung Ek for torture, and/or execution.

The executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, the convicted were often executed using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. The soldiers who committed the executions were mostly young men or women from peasant families.

The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed nearly anyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, as well as professionals and intellectuals who were the class targets of the Khmer Rouge. Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chams (who were and are Muslims), Cambodian Christians, and the Buddhist monkhood were the demographic targets of persecution.

The best-known of these sites is Choeung Ek. Today, Choeung Ek is the site of a Buddhist memorial to the terror, and Tuol Sleng has a museum commemorating the genocide. A 1984 motion picture, The Killing Fields, depicts the events that led to and occurred during this time. The film tells the story of Cambodian journalist Dith Pran, played by Cambodian actor Haing S. Ngor, and his journey to escape the death camps.

History lesson over.

A few words from both sides of the issue in regards to the Vietnam war.

When I see protesters in the flush of youthful idealism holding signs that proclaim “No Vietnams in Central America,” a feeling of ineffable sadness overtakes me. For 20 years ago I was one of them. In 1962, as a graduate student at Berkeley, I wrote the first book of New Left protest, Student, and helped to organize the first “anti-war” demonstration opposing what we denounced as U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

In the mid-Sixties, I went to England and helped to organize the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, which supported what we called the Vietnamese struggle for independence from the United States, as well as the International War Crimes Tribunal, which brought American war atrocities under intense and damning scrutiny but ignored atrocities committed by the Communist forces in Vietnam. While in England, I also wrote The Free World Colossus, a New Left history of the Cold War, which was used as a radical text in colleges and in the growing movement against the Vietnam War. At the end of the Sixties, I returned to America as an editor of Ramparts, the most widely read New Left magazine. Our most famous cover appeared during Richard Nixon’s campaign in 1972 for a second term. It featured a photograph of the My Lai massacre with a sign superimposed and planted among the corpses saying, “Re-Elect the President.”

Let me make this perfectly clear: Those of us who inspired and then led the anti-war movement did not want merely to stop the killing as so many veterans of those domestic battles now claim. We wanted the Communists to win. It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the Communists would win. “Bring the troops home” was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result.

Read the rest.... He is at least honest in his assessment of himself and his reasons. Bluntly honest.

Understanding the Vietnam War, why we went there in the first place, and how we ultimately screwed up and lost, has helped to put all of these emotions in their proper prospective.

Many Nam Vets, justifiably, blame their government, the Generals, Congress, McNamara and especially President Johnson for the demise in Vietnam.

After all, it wasn’t our fault. We were trained to win and we went to Vietnam to win. Losing never entered our minds. Why then did we lose?

The simple answer to this question would be, we didn’t lose, we gave up. I’ve seen bumper stickers that read, ”We were winning when I left” A truer statement would be ”We were winning when we all finally left”

Let’s face it; the Vietnam War was a bad war! That’s what all the Journalists called it, “A Bad war” I contend that there is no such thing as a “Good War” But then the Journalists basically wrote the script for the Vietnam war didn’t they, Vietnam was the first “made for television” War.

I was in Vietnam just short of (4) weeks when on August 2nd 1965 Dan Rather (a CBS field reporter at the time) came into the field and did a piece for the CBS nightly news.

Although Mr. Rather was only party to the aftermath, and reported only hearsay, (he showed up several hours after the incident, and only after the area had been secured) he was the expert as far as the average American television viewer was concerned. However, Dan Rather did not report all of the facts, and what was reported, made the Marines of G Company 2nd Battalion 9th Marines look like barbarians.

(Dan Rather’s segment was aired on the CBS nightly news and again in a CBS series titled “Vietnam The 10,000 Day War” and allegedly exposes US wrongdoing in the Village of Cam Ne) See my story (Assault on Cam Ne) in the War Stories section for the truth.

Unfortunately, the Press interfered greatly with the process of winning, by brining the War into every living room in America, and using the War for television ratings. War is tough enough on those of us who fight it, it has different and sometimes more overbearing effects on those who observe it.

(Americans quickly became disgusted with the scoreboard, the daily body counts)

It was the American public, tired and disgusted with what they were seeing on television, that through protest, finally put a stop to the war. And yes, some of our politicians were way out of control......

Sounding intimately familiar at this point? It should. Instead of learning the lessons that history should have taught us, we are, indeed, repeating them.

From the media becoming the "experts" to the American public, to the politicians playing games because of the "next" election, to the American people losing the desire to win and not giving a damn what happens to the Iraqi people if we were to abnadon them once again.

It is a different century, yet it is the same fight.

The next time you use the expression "The Iraqi's" Please keep in mind that they are human beings... women, men and children.

THESE are the people our soldiers give their lives to help.

What are YOU doing to help these people? All our soldiers ask you to do, is SUPPORT them in their mission.

Monday, January 29, 2007

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

“These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

Another counterprotester, Larry Stark, 71, a retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam for five years and was a prisoner of war, said, “We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protesters have their way.”

The protesters on Saturday were undermining troop morale, Mr. Stark said, and increasing the likelihood of a premature withdrawal.

There is, however, one fundamental difference between 1972 and 2007. We know today what comes after the marchers have boarded their buses and headed home, the speeches have ended and the politicians have voted their resolutions. Once the enemy celebrates their victory, blood begins flowing across the killing fields. In Vietnam, millions of South Vietnamese were murdered within weeks of the North’s April 1975 triumph, millions more spent years in brutal “re-education camps” and yet more millions became boat people fleeing the slaughter. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge created a Hell on earth that killed millions more innocents. Eventually, millions of Afghanis died because the Soviets were emboldened by America’s defeat in Vietnam to send the Red Army streaming into Afghanistan.

If the “peace” movement succeeds in defeating America again, the blood will again flow across the killing fields, but this time it will create even more unimaginable horror and it will not all be in distant lands far removed from our comfortable neighborhoods here at home. The slaughter of Shia and Sunni in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq will only be the beginning of the mass killing that will follow American defeat. With the Americans gone, al-Qaida will have a secure breeding ground from which to launch countless terrorists attacks against the U.S. and its allies around the world and here in America. Turkey will send troops into Northern Iraq and kill or otherwise eliminate all possibility of an independent Kurdistan. Jihadist radicals in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world will foment massacres, bombings and assassinations aimed at overthrowing remaining moderate regimes.

We can quit, walk away and sit back and wait for the next attack on our soil or we can continue on the offensive and fight these monsters where we find them BEFORE they can commit another act of mass murder on our soil.

Whether you agree that we should have invaded iraq or not,we did...it is done. Does anyone doubt that there is al-Qaeda members in Iraq right now? Does anyone doubt that al-Qaeda is there to kill American and Coalition forces?

I am not going to blame one party or the other for the attack on 9/11 which killed approximately 3,000 people, blame is a waste of time.....WE WERE ATTACKED, here at home and we must fight back with every fiber of our beings, so that it does not happen again.

Does anyone disagree with that assessment?

Why do we have to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR and to show weakness, to retreat in defeat from this or any battle with extremists will encourage our enemies to attack us again, knowing full well that our response will be limited to what is easy, what is cheap and we will quit if the fight gets hard or takes too long.

We are a good country, we are a brave country and we need our enemies to understand WE WILL NOT QUIT and we will not fail.

Yes, it was...if you are suggesting that we should not react unless we lose 20 million people Mr. Bell, then you Sir, are worse than a court jester. I suggest you ask the victims families if we have over reacted.

WE ARE AT WAR

Either we continue to take the fight to these terrorists or start building bomb shelters again and prepare ourselves to live our lives simply waiting for the next attack.

Political gameplaying needs to end and as a country we need to stand up and say NO, we will not retreat, we will not be defeated, we will not surrender. We will fight and we will succeed because we are AMERICA.

[UPDATE BELOW] The update linked to below shows that our emails/faxes and phones call ARE having the desired effect..... scroll for the update.

Copying an email from Hugh Hewitt and N.Z.Bear.....I have sent my emails, called the numbers and faxed these folks...have you?

Dear Pledge Signer:

Today and tomorrow will be decisive days in the Senate debate over the Biden/Warner/McCain resolutions. We believe the Senate GOP should refuse cloture on all resolutions, and thus at least provide victory Republicans with clarity as to who deserves their support in the Senate. Please contact the nine Senators below and urge them to oppose all resolutions, and to refuse to vote for cloture (which requires 60 votes) and to aggressively defend the war and the reinforcements in the debate this week. Nine phone calls, nine faxes and nine e-mails may take an hour or two, but we believe that victory in Iraq deserves that effort and much much more. The nine key senators and their contact information:

We also belive that it is crucial that you include details of your past support for GOP candidates. When you email these Senators, please 'CC:' us at admin@thenrscpledge.com if you would like us to post your comments online.

We will be asking Townhall.com to handle the technical side of TheNRSCPledge from here on out. If you would like updates on the effort, please reply to this email with the word 'SUBSCRIBE' in the subject line (if you have not already done so to our previous email). Future updates will come from the Townhall.com server, and we don't want to do that without your permission.

Thank you for getting the message to these senators early on Monday and throughout the day and tomorrow.

NZ Bear Hugh Hewitt

This is important people.... we need to make it very clear that no money, no votes and no support of ANY kind will go to ANY candidate or politician that votes for any resolution that will encourage the enemy or demoralize our troops.

Copy of my email:

I am a staunch supporter of the GOP. My blog is newer than most but I am actively involved and I have developed a large following in a short amount of time.

I use this blog to encourage people too learn why it is important, especially for our National Security to support the party or people that I personally believe does a better joband is more capable of protecting America.

I state this because my support as well as tens of thousands of other conservative bloggers that believe as I do, will no longer support in any way, shape or form, ANY political member thatvotes for ANY resolution that we believe will encourage our enemies or demoralize our troops.

The NRSC Pledge has over 29,000+ signatures, one of which is mine.

The pledge is as follows:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

We must fight to win and our President has developed a new strategy which a small part of this strategy is an additional 21,ooo+ troops, we the people, YOUR supporters, expect OUR representatives to back the President of the United States of America in a time of war.

If this is not something we can count on, then I see no reason for YOU to be able to count on US, for support, any longer either.

2008 is coming upon us and your actions at this time will be remembered and judged.

Our decision on who to support in the future is completely up to you and your actions in this matter.

The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home. In my many conversations with members of Congress and foreign policy experts, few have disagreed.

The strategic review commissioned by President Bush analyzed the options for setting Iraq on a trajectory for success. Alternatives now being discussed in Congress were considered but rejected after the strategic risks and stakes were calculated.

The review considered the option of pulling U.S. forces out of Baghdad and concentrating on al-Qaeda in Iraq and training Iraqi security forces, as some in Congress recommend.

Most people agree that we must focus on fighting al-Qaeda. The president's strategy steps up this fight -- particularly in Anbar province, where al-Qaeda seeks a sanctuary. The administration also agrees that we must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces. The president's strategy does this -- with benchmarks to track progress and bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces. Training and supporting Iraqi troops will remain our military's essential and primary mission.

But the president's review also concluded that the strategy with the best chance of success must have a plan for securing Baghdad. Without such a plan, the Iraqi government and its security institutions could fracture under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and mass killings. Chaos would then spread throughout the country -- and throughout the region. The al-Qaeda movement would be strengthened by the flight of Sunnis from Baghdad and an accelerated cycle of sectarian bloodletting. Iran would be emboldened and could be expected to provide more lethal aid for extremist groups. The Kurdish north would be isolated, inviting separation and regional interference. Terrorists could gain pockets of sanctuary throughout Iraq from which to threaten our allies in the region and our security here at home.

The new plan for Baghdad specifically corrects the problems that plagued previous efforts. First, it is an Iraqi-initiated plan for taking control of their capital. Second, there will be adequate forces (Iraqi and American) to hold neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and extremists. Third, there is a new operational concept -- one devised not just to pursue terrorists and extremists but to secure the population. Fourth, new rules of engagement will ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces can pursue lawbreakers regardless of their community or sect. Fifth, security operations will be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid -- including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds -- offering jobs and the prospect of better lives.

As Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, explained in hearings before Congress last week, reinforcing U.S. troops is necessary for this new plan to succeed. Any plan that limits our ability to reinforce our troops in the field is a plan for failure -- and could hand Baghdad to terrorists and extremists before legitimate Iraqi forces are ready to take over the fight. That is an outcome the president simply could not accept.

The Baker-Hamilton report supports this conclusion. It said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

The focus on reinforcing our troops must not overshadow the comprehensive nature of the changes in the president's strategy. Contrary to what some have suggested, reinforcing our military presence is not the strategy -- it is a means to an end and part of a package of key strategic shifts that will fundamentally restructure our approach to achieving our objectives in Iraq.

Building on experience elsewhere in the country, the new strategy doubles the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These civilian-led units will target development aid where it is needed and help the Iraqi government extend its reach to all corners of the country.

Because close civilian-military cooperation is key to success, 10 new civilian PRTs will be embedded with U.S. combat brigades.

The new strategy incorporates other essential elements of the Baker-Hamilton report, such as doubling the number of troops embedded with Iraqi forces, using benchmarks to help us and the Iraqis chart progress, and launching a renewed diplomatic effort to increase support for the Iraqi government and advance political reconciliation.

Ultimately, a strategy for success must present a realistic plan for bringing security to the people of Baghdad. This is a precondition to advancing other goals. President Bush's strategy offers such a plan -- and it is the only strategy that does.

The plan is already working and now is NOT the time to allow the political gameplayers to force our military to retreat in defeat.

BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — At least 250 militants were killed and an American helicopter was shot down in violent clashes near the southern city of Najaf on Sunday, Iraqi officials said.

For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.

The Iraqi's are finally stepping up to the plate.... now is not the time to abandon them.

SIGN THE PLEDGE if you have not already and make your calls, send your emails.....MAKE YOURSELF HEARD.

The Democratic plan was for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden to sit down over the weekend with his longtime Republican colleague, Sen. John Warner, and hammer out a consensus bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. But Warner, who has been making backroom deals for 22 years in the Senate, informed Biden late last Thursday: No deal.

Warner wrote that the "will of the Senate" should be determined in "open" session, not closeted negotiations. That killed the Democratic leadership's dream of passing a Biden-crafted anti-surge resolution by 70 votes or more. Such a proposal now cannot get the 60 votes needed for cloture to end a filibuster (and could fall short of the 50 senators needed for a simple majority). Conceivably, no resolution at all may be passed by the Senate.

[...]

Biden wanted to force through his sharply worded (though non-binding) resolution. But advisers prevailed on him to meld his proposal with Warner's milder non-approval language. Biden and his principal Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Chuck Hagel (second-ranking Republican on Foreign Relations), on Wednesday said they were ready to begin negotiating with Warner, the former Armed Services Committee chairman.

[...]

One of Biden's advisers told me then that the negotiations should prove no problem because they were willing to accept "about 90 percent" of Warner's resolution. Democrats complained that its present wording left the door open for further troop increases, and some questioned its first paragraph affirming the president's constitutional role as commander in chief. Such language was supposed to have been massaged during the weekend.

But Biden was surprised late Wednesday afternoon to receive a blunt letter from Warner and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. They asserted that they and other co-sponsors of the resolution "believe that issues set forth in [the resolution] should occur as a consequence of the will of the Senate, working in 'open' session, during floor debate and consideration." In other words, no private negotiations.

KEEP the pressure on folks!!!!!!!! SIGN THE PLEDGE, make the calls, email and fax these people, over and over again until they understand that they COUNT ON US and if we cannot count on them, then they cannot count on us anymore.

WALLACE: Let's look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?

LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country.

I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.

So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned.

WALLACE: But looking at the three frontrunners — Clinton, Obama, Edwards — all of them in varying degrees expressing their opposition to the war and wanting to end our involvement there — could you support any presidential candidate who you didn't feel was committed to victory in Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism.

Here's where I am and maybe why it's — I am genuinely an Independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy. I'm an Independent.

LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.

I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I'm saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide who to support for president.

He will vote for who he thinks is the better candidate and who HE believes will be strong on National Security. No wonder the Dems are throwing a fit.... National Security isn't their strong suit as they continue to show with their "non binding" political statements that will encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops.

I may not agree with Lieberman on some issues, but I agree 100% that National Security IS the number one issue of our time and I applaud his principled stand which isn't popular but sure as hell is right.

Usually I post Centcom's daily press releases because it seems that is the only way some people ever see them because the mainstream media sure as hell doesn't ever let you see the good news or the progress in Iraq.

Lately though the mainstream media hasn't had much choice and it thrills me that finally they are forced to show some of the good coming out of Iraq.

This confirms reports posted on Iraq the Model, which cited al-Sabah, an Iraqi government-owned newspaper.

In speaking with Pajamas Media the military intelligence officer supplied several new details of the al Qaeda retreat.

The apparent evacuation of Baghdad by al Qaeda forces comes from direct orders issued by al-Masri, the former soldier who took control of the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda following the June 2006 bombing death of Zarqawi.

Initially, the intelligence officer informed Pajamas, the Baghdad-based AQ fighters did not want to leave. Al-Masri had to send unequivocal orders for their retreat, adding that one of the lessons from the Fallujah campaign was that Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting. Masri said that remaining in Baghdad was a ‘no-win situation’ for the terrorists.

“In more than ten years of reading al Qaeda intercepts, I’ve never seen language like this,” the intelligence officer said. Usually, al Qaeda communications are full of bravado and false confidence, he added.

Facing intense pressure from the Bush administration to show progress in securing Iraq, senior Iraqi officials announced Wednesday that they had moved against the country’s most powerful Shiite militia, arresting several dozen senior members in the past few weeks.

It was the first time the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had claimed significant action against the militia, the Mahdi Army, one of the most intractable problems facing his administration. The militia’s leader, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, helped put Mr. Maliki in power, but pressure to crack down on the group has mounted as its killings in the capital have driven a wedge into efforts to keep the country together.

Although the announcement seemed timed to deflect growing scrutiny by an American administration that has grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Maliki, American officers here offered some support for the government’s claims, saying that at least half a dozen senior militia leaders had been taken into custody in recent weeks.

In perhaps the most surprising development, the Americans said, none of the members had been prematurely released, a chronic problem as this government has frequently shielded Shiite fighters.

“There was definitely a change in attitudes,” in the past three to four weeks, a senior American military officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Maliki, in a meeting with foreign journalists on Wednesday, said 400 Mahdi militiamen had been arrested “within the last few days,” according to a tape of the interview made available to The New York Times. A senior government official said later by telephone that the total number arrested was 420 and that they had been detained in 56 operations beginning in October. Several dozen senior leaders have been detained in the past several weeks, the senior official said on condition of anonymity. He said the total number of senior commanders did not exceed 100.

U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides Friday in Baghdad, his office said, as pressure increases on the radical Shiite cleric's militia ahead of a planned security sweep aimed at stemming the sectarian violence ransacking the capital.

Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, al-Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was captured Friday and his personal guard was killed, according to another senior al-Sadr aide.

The U.S. military said special Iraqi army forces operating with coalition advisers captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader in Baladiyat, but it did not identify the detainee. It said two other suspects were detained by Iraqi forces for further questioning.

DEATH SQUAD leaders have fled Baghdad to evade capture or killing by American and Iraqi forces before the start of the troop “surge” and security crackdown in the capital.

A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran.

Among those said to have fled is Abu Deraa, the Shi’ite militia leader whose appetite for sectarian savagery has been compared to that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed last year.

The former minister, who did not want to be named for security reasons, backed Sunni MPs’ claims that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, had encouraged their flight. He alleged that weapons belonging to Sadr’s Mahdi Army had been hidden inside the Iraqi interior ministry to prevent confiscation.

Maliki said last week: “I know that senior criminals have left Baghdad, others have left the country. This is good — this shows that our message is being taken seriously.”

Fact is, while senate and congress is pissing and moaning and wasting time and taxpayers money to play their political games, President Bush and al-Maliki along with the US, coalition and Iraqi forces are out there doing their jobs to succeed in their goals for Iraq.

THIS WILL BE REMEMBERED.

Those proposing these ridiculous "non binding resolutions" will be judged accordingly, especially those that are doing it for political aspirations in the 2008 presidential election.

Once again I encourage the senators and the congress to speak up and let us know now who wishes retreat and defeat so that we may be able to archive it and remind you in your next election exactly how the American people feel about defeatists and those that give comfort and aid and encourage our enemies abroad.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A U.S. helicopter crashed Sunday while providing air support during a large-scale ground confrontation between Iraqi security forces and gunmen allegedly plotting to kill Shiite pilgrims and clerics during a religious festival.

The military said two crew members were killed in the crash, which occurred about 12 miles northeast of Najaf. Iraqi officials said about 250 militants were killed in the fighting, but the figure could not be independently confirmed. Sources told FOX News that up to 300 insurgents may have been killed.

Please keep the soldiers and their families, who gave their lives for that mission, in your prayers.